Interesting article in our local paper today
- Thread starter Papa Bear
- Start date
- Status
Very interesting....wish there were more details...
Amazing. Soon there will be no need for humans to fight. Just send in our robots to destroy the human enemy. He who has the best technology wins.
Originally Posted By: Samuraidog
Amazing. Soon there will be no need for humans to fight. Just send in our robots to destroy the human enemy. He who has the best technology wins.
Sure, robots which can out maneuver a Marine rifleman.
Amazing. Soon there will be no need for humans to fight. Just send in our robots to destroy the human enemy. He who has the best technology wins.
Sure, robots which can out maneuver a Marine rifleman.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Very interesting....wish there were more details...
I guess in a simulation, a computer could fly the plane much better than a human, as it would always be able to calculate and recalculate the inputs needed for the "ideal" turn based on the parameters of the simulation better than any person. 3D combat strategy must've taken a bit of programming though.
A computer running a real jet would be a bit different I'm sure, as the plane in the air is analog, and getting a digital model working well enough to do combat maneuvers better than a pilot might be tough.
Very interesting....wish there were more details...
I guess in a simulation, a computer could fly the plane much better than a human, as it would always be able to calculate and recalculate the inputs needed for the "ideal" turn based on the parameters of the simulation better than any person. 3D combat strategy must've taken a bit of programming though.
A computer running a real jet would be a bit different I'm sure, as the plane in the air is analog, and getting a digital model working well enough to do combat maneuvers better than a pilot might be tough.
The last few generations of military jets all require computers to fly and keep it in the air, it's said that if the stabilization computer(s) fails the human cannot process fast enough to fly the plane. So already the human is extraneous in real life not just in simulation.
An aircraft without a human can pull G's that would cause a human to blackout, and still keep on maneuvering however it would be necessary to win the fight. The G limit would be raised to what ever is physically posable for the airplane to pull and still stay in one piece, instead of being limited to how much a human can take.
And there would be no need for a cockpit, controls that a human uses, air or oxygen, seat, or ejector mechanism.
And there would be no need for a cockpit, controls that a human uses, air or oxygen, seat, or ejector mechanism.
Last edited:
The campaign was lost as when engaging the enemy, the Pi started a W10 forced upgrade and reboot mid flight.
better article about the same thing.
http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/alpha.html
http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/alpha.html
As was mentioned above, computers are already flying the plane. The meat in the cockpit is providing inputs to the systems. I think we all know this will be operational someday, in the not too distant future. As Jim mentioned, all the life support and interface systems go away too. Not saying I agree with it, just facing facts.
Well no, not really.
Talk to a few airline pilots and learn about how the planes are really flown.
Better yet, go to a GA airfield and buy a few hours of dual. You'll learn a lot and have a lot of fun doing it. After some hours of dual, you'll even be able to take a C172 up all by yourself. This will be an awesome experience, well beyond merely riding in any aircraft however special it might be.
Check out AF 447 and learn just how good of a job computers can do flying planes.
On that flight, everything worked great until the systems dumped an awful situation into the hands of an unsuspecting crew. The crew then did exactly what they were trained to do, which turned out to be completely wrong.
There remains a substantial need for the judgment and skills that only a human operator can provide.
Software engineers aren't pilots nor are gamers.
Talk to a few airline pilots and learn about how the planes are really flown.
Better yet, go to a GA airfield and buy a few hours of dual. You'll learn a lot and have a lot of fun doing it. After some hours of dual, you'll even be able to take a C172 up all by yourself. This will be an awesome experience, well beyond merely riding in any aircraft however special it might be.
Check out AF 447 and learn just how good of a job computers can do flying planes.
On that flight, everything worked great until the systems dumped an awful situation into the hands of an unsuspecting crew. The crew then did exactly what they were trained to do, which turned out to be completely wrong.
There remains a substantial need for the judgment and skills that only a human operator can provide.
Software engineers aren't pilots nor are gamers.
Well said fdcg27!
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Well no, not really.
Talk to a few airline pilots and learn about how the planes are really flown.
Better yet, go to a GA airfield and buy a few hours of dual. You'll learn a lot and have a lot of fun doing it. After some hours of dual, you'll even be able to take a C172 up all by yourself. This will be an awesome experience, well beyond merely riding in any aircraft however special it might be.
Check out AF 447 and learn just how good of a job computers can do flying planes.
On that flight, everything worked great until the systems dumped an awful situation into the hands of an unsuspecting crew. The crew then did exactly what they were trained to do, which turned out to be completely wrong.
There remains a substantial need for the judgment and skills that only a human operator can provide.
Software engineers aren't pilots nor are gamers.
I understand, and I did say in the future. I don't think we disagree. The AF 447 A330 had a known problem with the pitots freezing up (all of them). If you don't give the computers proper air data, the system cant fly the plane. As I remember, when the pilot took over, he also made wrong decisions, due to the lack of IAS. Like I indicated, I didn't say I liked it, I do think we'll see it in the future. I don't like the idea of autonomous cars either. BTW although I'm not a pilot, (other than RC airplanes), I have been working on engine and flight control systems for nearly 30 years.
Well no, not really.
Talk to a few airline pilots and learn about how the planes are really flown.
Better yet, go to a GA airfield and buy a few hours of dual. You'll learn a lot and have a lot of fun doing it. After some hours of dual, you'll even be able to take a C172 up all by yourself. This will be an awesome experience, well beyond merely riding in any aircraft however special it might be.
Check out AF 447 and learn just how good of a job computers can do flying planes.
On that flight, everything worked great until the systems dumped an awful situation into the hands of an unsuspecting crew. The crew then did exactly what they were trained to do, which turned out to be completely wrong.
There remains a substantial need for the judgment and skills that only a human operator can provide.
Software engineers aren't pilots nor are gamers.
I understand, and I did say in the future. I don't think we disagree. The AF 447 A330 had a known problem with the pitots freezing up (all of them). If you don't give the computers proper air data, the system cant fly the plane. As I remember, when the pilot took over, he also made wrong decisions, due to the lack of IAS. Like I indicated, I didn't say I liked it, I do think we'll see it in the future. I don't like the idea of autonomous cars either. BTW although I'm not a pilot, (other than RC airplanes), I have been working on engine and flight control systems for nearly 30 years.
The A330 experienced a problem with at least two of its three pitot-static systems that was a known possibility.
As someone with three decades of experience in flight control systems, you already know that airspeed indication is not actually needed to maintain level flight.
If the systems had been designed and programmed with a reversionary mode to maintain level flight based upon pitch and power, this accident would never have occurred.
Automated systems should never allow a situation to become dire and then dump it upon the operator.
As someone with three decades of experience in flight control systems, you already know that airspeed indication is not actually needed to maintain level flight.
If the systems had been designed and programmed with a reversionary mode to maintain level flight based upon pitch and power, this accident would never have occurred.
Automated systems should never allow a situation to become dire and then dump it upon the operator.
Yes you are correct, and this wouldn't be the first time that there have been concerns about Airbus's flight control systems. From what I have been able to read, the aircraft did not experience any flight path excursions, until the autopilot disengaged, and the Flight control system went into alternate law (i.e. direct mode) due to a loss / disagree of IAS. The pilots actually lost control of the airplane while dealing with turbulence, Flight control system being in a state of reduced capacity, and an IAS issue.
The original article, and my point, was in reference to automated air combat scenarios and vehicles, which I think we'll see in the future. The X-47B which has successfully taken off and landed autonomously from a carrier is an example. There have been issues, but there always are. These systems are obviously not ready for deployment, but they get closer every year.
The original article, and my point, was in reference to automated air combat scenarios and vehicles, which I think we'll see in the future. The X-47B which has successfully taken off and landed autonomously from a carrier is an example. There have been issues, but there always are. These systems are obviously not ready for deployment, but they get closer every year.
- Status
Similar threads
